Picard v. Laro Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Picard v. Laro Maintenance Corp.

291 A.D.2d 437, 737 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1637

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 437 (Picard v. Laro Maintenance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Picard v. Laro Maintenance Corp., 291 A.D.2d 437, 737 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Aramark, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 20, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Aramark, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In opposition to the prima facie demonstration by the defendant Aramark, Inc. (hereinafter Aramark), of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Aramark either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it within a reasonable time to remedy it (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Metzger v Yorktown Jewish Ctr., 283 AD2d 466; Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634). Thus, Aramark is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Aramark, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 20, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Aramark, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In opposition to the prima facie demonstration by the defendant Aramark, Inc. (hereinafter Aramark), of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Aramark either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it within a reasonable time to remedy it (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Metzger v Yorktown Jewish Ctr., 283 AD2d 466; Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634). Thus, Aramark is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 437, 737 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picard-v-laro-maintenance-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack